Unexpected Headline: Obama Backs Bush On Rendition Case, Secrecy

"The liberal legal scold"
.
With all due respect, Michael, go f--- yourself.

On the plus side, the latest Treasury plan is well liked.

Oops. Did that pop out?
.
I must remember my manners.

The liberal legal scold Glenn Greenwald calls this a 180-degree reversal from Obama's campaign promise.
.
Scherer, you are just about the least qualified person to criticize Glenn Greenwald.

I suppose it's possible to conceive of a tree of disclosures that would have to take place in open court, not only about torture sites in other countries, but the intelligence operation that named these men as sources and how and why that operation was functioning. A public trial is not a good place for explaining an intelligence network even if it had screwed up policies. Popular Mechanics is not a good place for a review of home processing of fissionable material either.

And Obama can go f--- himself too.

Although, according to NPR, "On the same day as arguments in the Jeppesen case, Attorney General Eric Holder ordered senior Justice Department officials to review all of the Bush administration's assertions of the state secret privilege." I think they just need more time.

FISA, funding, freedom, fornication, federal courts flip flops all?

That's Our Frozone!

Mr. Scherer, you should check Mr. Klein's headline below, because I must provide you with a similar admonition. Obama is not backing the Bush policy of rendition, which is exactly what a lot of these stories make it sound like he's doing. The administration is simply saying that the lawsuit against the Boeing corporation shouldn't be allowed to proceed because it involves state secrets. The administration has not wavered in its firm opposition to rendition, and it's hard to see how suing Boeing for something they were contracted to do by the government really helps justice.

Glenn nails the substantive argument, but he really has Obama dead to rights on the flip-flopping.

Silly libs.

Lies IS for Clixons.

Michael Scherer:
.
The liberal legal scold Glenn Greenwald?
.
That should read:
.
Blogger Glenn Greenwald, largely derided as a "liberal legal scold" by the national press corps (of whom he has been often harshly critical)...
.
Your Village context is showing, Michael Scherer.
.
How disappointing...

Good point, astarf.
.
Headline, revised: "Unexpected Headline: Obama Backs Bush On Secrecy, Abuse Of Executive Authority"

Welcome to BROWN SHIRT HYPOCRISY MONTH.

Regardless if this is a defensible position or not (I'm not entirely sure it is or it isn't, I will admit that I don't know enough of the case, and in ordinary times I would be fine with the govt. using this privelage, but after the Bush Administration we are not in ordinary times) this is the sort of thing they're going to have to be more public about doing.
.
If the DOJ is going to claim that a case is going to risk secrets and national security, they can't just claim that anymore and leave it at that, they are going to need to make a case to the public about why (you can say enough to let folks on about what kind of information you'ld be leaking and explain why it's too much of a risk), and after they make their case see if the public concurs or lynches them. If they try to ignore it... bad form, bad form.

Wow, that little story is made of fail MS. Without reading the links I would have a completely wrong impression of what's actually happening. This is like that time I was in Iraq and came back after a mission to see CNN talking about what we just did - except what happened and their report had absolutely nothing in common.
-
Incredibly weaksauce dude.

Thanks for highlighting this story, Michael. It's important stuff. Very disappointing. We're still early on in the administration, of course, but this is very discouraging if it is not reversed. I suspect they're afraid to disclose just how much the Bush administration was breaking laws and torturing, because it would lead to prosecutions, which would kill a post-partisan era. Why David Broder and Eric Cantor's feelings should supersede the rule of law is quite unclear to me.
-
The liberal legal scold
-
Sigh. What sqr1 said.

The administration is simply saying that the lawsuit against the Boeing corporation shouldn't be allowed to proceed because it involves state secrets.
.
Yeah, and that's pretty much the core of my problem with the Obama Administration on this topic.
.
I'm holding out some hope that he'll reverse the DOJ's position on this (I think there's a precedent for it), but I'm preparing for disappointment.

McCarthy and Booby Kennedy were in fact correct, after all, and the loon lib NUTS including Klein on this board are proof positive that the greatest enemies to American freedom and human peace are not out in the 3rd world hinterlands or madrassas, but comfortably ensconced in the tenured Ivy halls and Foggy Bottom legacies and media mud pits otherwise known as the liberal establishment.

My favorite glowing example of this disconnect was during the CBS vs Westy trial (for those of you out of diapers) when the meddling mavens at Black Rock were reduced in public to their narcissistic, Old European coddling anti-American least. The loon left learned little from that episode, apparently, even where they were called out and feathered as rank & file liars about the troops, military leadership, and intelligence officers that they daily then and still now slander and liable as a career move.

No matter.

Obama has read the intel, he now knows what's at stake, and perhaps a chance for true justice remains, despite the howling from his moronic mob of chanters dressed up like patriots no longer than election day.

What a group.

What a legacy.

Time to go old school
.
Phuck you Mikey Scherer!

Obama has read the intel, he now knows what's at stake...
.
QH:
.
You sound like you have "read the intel", and therefore you (and Obama) know something that the rest of America does not.
.
Are you somehow privy to the "state secrets" upon which the Obama DOJ is basing its position on the Boeing rendition case?

During the mid 70's even the likes of Garrison Trudeau were forced by the relentless facts to admit their public duplicity with the enemies of America and freedom.

When will the liberal establishment admit now their willingness to burn all bridges to peace, but for the sake of their GET BUSH, GET CHENEY foaming allegiance to everything Red Brigades and nothing useful?

Petra Kelley's dead and buried along with her idiot spouse.

Sadly, her spawn still crawl out from the core of the DNC hemp hut every 4 years, to rally the lemmings for pre-emptive Western defeat.

= CHAMBERLITES ACCOMPLISHED =

1. Let's be honest: anyone with a history of covering up for torture-supporting racists has to be far to the right of Glenn Greenwald. Michael Scherer and the rest of the John McBirch Society have never believed in the rule of law.

2. Marty Lederman's old haunt, Balkinization, pulls no punches as far as I can tell. Read this commentary by David Luban and tell me if I am wrong.

Yes, Greenwald did lay out a strong case on the legal issue for which you scolded Obama.

MS,
.
If I'm not mistaken, you meant "privilege" rather than "priveledge" in the last sentence. (What can I say? Teacher editing habits die hard.)
.
Also, I think you were deliberately baiting the Swampcommenters with the "liberal legal scold" thing. Am I right?